• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are the number of civilian deaths in the ME from western bombings acceptable?

Are the number of civilian deaths in the ME from western bombings acceptable?

  • Total voters
    27
Nilly said:
From airwars:

https://airwars.org/coalitioncivcas2017july/



If you feel that's not enough to suffice then I guess we're at an impasse.
Click to expand...

Everyone claims their numbers are well sourced. It's still, at best, second-hand interpretation of data.

Of course it's preferable when ISIS control less. But if it comes at the cost of more deaths than ISIS would cause anyway, then what's the point?
Click to expand...

Do you have any grasp of what ISIS represents? Do you really think deaths are the only damage ISIS does?

Do you honestly believe ISIS has killed less than the collateral damage inflicted by the West?

The naivety is too much to believe. You're just playing devil's advocate, right? You don't really mean to apologize for and minimize the damage done by ISIS, do you?

That ISIS has killed less in 2017 than before is a direct result of bombing them. It's not because they're becoming nice guys. Restricting your analysis to 2017 is intellectual dishonest.

Strawmen. I appreciate your service but you're better than that Eco. Although you've kind of given your answer through your posts anyway.
Click to expand...

BS. I've agreed to give my life for the greater good. That speaks directly to my understanding of sacrifice for the greater good and the unfortunate necessity of collateral damage. In terms of innocents killed as a result of necessary military action, dead American soldiers are collateral damage.


You live in a protected little fantasy world if you believe the damage done by ISIS can be quantified in deaths alone. And you live in another fantasy world if you think ISIS has killed only a handful of people.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Everyone claims their numbers are well sourced. It's still, at best, second-hand interpretation of data.

Do you have any grasp of what ISIS represents? Do you really think deaths are the only damage ISIS does?

Do you honestly believe ISIS has killed less than the collateral damage inflicted by the West?

The naivety is too much to believe. You're just playing devil's advocate, right? You don't really mean to apologize for and minimize the damage done by ISIS, do you?

BS. I've agreed to give my life for the greater good. That speaks directly to my understanding of sacrifice for the greater good and the unfortunate necessity of collateral damage. In terms of innocents killed as a result of necessary military action, dead American soldiers are collateral damage.

You live in a protected little fantasy world if you believe the damage done by ISIS can be quantified in deaths alone. And you live in another fantasy world if you think ISIS has killed only a handful of people.
Click to expand...

If they were claiming their numbers were well source then why does the estimate range from 300-7000. I believe it's being fair in their assessment. And given that we are not omniscient beings it is a good starting point to work from. Sorry if that doesn't work for you.

The reason I only did 2017 is because that source is limited to 2017.

I don't think ISIS has only killed a handful of people. Thousands is not a handful. And I don't want to ignore the greater consequences that ISIS has, especially in their own part of the world. I do think that the consequence of ISIS in the west is vastly overstated by our media. I also think you are just as guilty and naive if you think that coalition led deaths in the ME do not carry far reaching consequences of their own. Or maybe it's not naïveté, just conditioning.

If we only consider the ISIS affect against the west vs our affect on the ME, then in terms of consequence we far outweigh theirs. I don't see how you can deny that. ISIS have killed Americans in maybe the double digits, and most of their 'attacks' are inspired by them rather than carried out by them. The only way in which they are comparable is if we consider the negative impact ISIS has on it's own area of the world. In which case, much of our efforts is in an attempt to 'save the brown people from themselves'. Which has the potential to be incredibly misguided in it's own way. I don't deny that action against ISIS is the right thing to do. Maybe even military action. I just question the magnitude of damage that we cause ourselves in attempting to solve the problem.

Also, if you could just go ahead and vote yes in the poll that would be great, trying to build up a picture here.
 
Nilly said:
If they were claiming their numbers were well source then why does the estimate range from 300-7000. I believe it's being fair in their assessment. And given that we are not omniscient beings it is a good starting point to work from. Sorry if that doesn't work for you.

The reason I only did 2017 is because that source is limited to 2017.

I don't think ISIS has only killed a handful of people. Thousands is not a handful. And I don't want to ignore the greater consequences that ISIS has, especially in their own part of the world. I do think that the consequence of ISIS in the west is vastly overstated by our media. I also think you are just as guilty and naive if you think that coalition led deaths in the ME do not carry far reaching consequences of their own. Or maybe it's not naïveté, just conditioning.

If we only consider the ISIS affect against the west vs our affect on the ME, then in terms of consequence we far outweigh theirs. I don't see how you can deny that. ISIS have killed Americans in maybe the double digits, and most of their 'attacks' are inspired by them rather than carried out by them. The only way in which they are comparable is if we consider the negative impact ISIS has on it's own area of the world. In which case, much of our efforts is in an attempt to 'save the brown people from themselves'. Which has the potential to be incredibly misguided in it's own way. I don't deny that action against ISIS is the right thing to do. Maybe even military action. I just question the magnitude of damage that we cause ourselves in attempting to solve the problem.

Also, if you could just go ahead and vote yes in the poll that would be great, trying to build up a picture here.
Click to expand...

Restricting the analysis to 2017 is intellectually dishonest. ISIS has killed less this year because it's on the verge of obliteration in Iraq.

Our influence in the ME? Iraq was a genocidal dictatorship, committing genocide twice to the tune of 200k Kurds and 50k Marsh Arabs. Iraq is now a fledgling democracy with human rights on the books. Instead of massive sanctions to prevent another genocide, Iraq is now a leading recipient of international aid and development projects.

How do you quantify that good?
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Restricting the analysis to 2017 is intellectually dishonest. ISIS has killed less this year because it's on the verge of obliteration in Iraq.

Our influence in the ME? Iraq was a genocidal dictatorship, committing genocide twice to the tune of 200k Kurds and 50k Marsh Arabs. Iraq is not a fledgling democracy with human rights on the books. Instead of massive sanctions to prevent another genocide, Iraq is now a leading recipient of international aid and development projects.

How do you quantify that good?
Click to expand...

And Syria now looks like 2002 Iraq. Well done us. Problem solved!
 
Nilly said:
And Syria now looks like 2002 Iraq. Well done us. Problem solved!
Click to expand...

Afghanistan has women running for and winning office. 70 something provincial offices are held by women in Afghan. Women are now allowed to become educated.

How do you quantify that good?


You're ignoring world-changing good in Iraq and Afghan, and touting incomplete and questionable data about deaths. You're apologizing for ISIS, and you're minimizing the damage done by ISIS.
 
The only number of acceptable civilian casualties is zero.

Our drone strike program, started under President Bush and continued under Presidents Obama and Trump, is one of the single worst components of our foreign policies. When we attack and kill civilians and then retroactively call them "enemy combatants," we throw away the narrative that the terrorists are worse than we are.
 
Note: I vote 'yes' in the poll from the standpoint that the deaths are necessary and serve the greater good. Less are killed than the targets of the strikes would have killed if they lived. I don't vote 'yes' in any sense of those deaths being fine.

Using the word 'acceptable' in the poll is not entirely honest.
 
antiquity said:
It seems that dropping a couple nuclear bombs on Japan and fire bombing both Tokyo and Dresden Germany was acceptable during a democratic administration.
Click to expand...

It absolutely was. It cost Japan a WW2 victory and helped end their slaughter of Asian countries and attacks on the US Military. Imperial Japan was brutal to Korea, China, and neighbors.
 
Nilly said:
And Syria now looks like 2002 Iraq. Well done us. Problem solved!
Click to expand...

Why don't you ask yourself what would happen if the bombing stopped?

It's ok with you if your neighbor down the road loses his son or daughter in some **** hole country like we have been doing for the past 60+ years?


I'll take bombs for $200 Alex!
 
ecofarm said:
Afghanistan has women running for and winning office. 70 something provincial offices are held by women in Afghan. Women are now allowed to become educated.

How do you quantify that good?

You're ignoring world-changing good in Iraq and Afghan, and touting incomplete and questionable data about deaths. You're apologizing for ISIS, and you're minimizing the damage done by ISIS.
Click to expand...

Benazir Bhutto was the female PM of Pakistan in 1988. Iran and Iraq had female ministers in the 1950's. Iraq had an education system established in the 1920's and by the 70's it was public and freely available to women. It's only with the islamic revoluion and the gulf war that it regressed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_education_in_Iran

Formal education for women in Iran began in 1907 with the establishment of the first primary school for girls. Education held an important role in Iranian society, especially as the nation began a period of modernization under the authority of Reza Shah Pahlavi in the early 20th century when the number of women's schools began to grow. By mid-century, legal reforms granting women the right to vote and raising the minimum age for marriage offered more opportunities for women to pursue education outside the home. After periods of imposed restrictions, women's educational attainment continued its rise through the Islamification of education following the Iranian Revolution of 1979, peaking in the years following radical changes in the curriculum and composition of classrooms.By 1989, women dominated the entrance examinations for college attendance.
In 1935, women first experienced the secularization of Iran's educational system when the University of Tehran was established.[3] As the nation's secularization created demand for professionally trained students, women were encouraged to attend schools. Education became a social norm and a marker of achievement in Iranian society.

On the eve of the Iranian Revolution, in 1976-77, 40 percent of secondary school enrollment was female. These numbers largely reflect the upper echelon of Iranian society, as women who were a part of an ethnic minority or from rural areas of Iran were largely excluded from these educational reforms.
Click to expand...

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/07/afghanistan-in-the-1950s-and-60s/100544/
Iran before the revolution in photos - Business Insider

The middle east was becoming progressive before the Islamic revolution in the 1970's (which was partly down to us anyway). I largely agree with you on identity politics Eco but I think you're falling into the trap here of seeing the white western europeans and americans as the saviours of progressivism (using that term loosely with respect to identity politics) in the ME. We're not.

If you think that I am minimizing the effect of ISIS in the middle east then fair enough but I think you're minimizing the effect of coalition bombing. A foreign power bombing the **** out of civilians in their own countries. Thats something that's never, ever happened in the United States and the response to it would be terrifying. But it's business as usual out there. You read the reports of children being taught to run when they hear the sound of a drone flying overhead and you don't think that has far reaching consequences?
 
RetiredUSN said:
Why don't you ask yourself what would happen if the bombing stopped?

It's ok with you if your neighbor down the road loses his son or daughter in some **** hole country like we have been doing for the past 60+ years?

I'll take bombs for $200 Alex!
Click to expand...

This may be seen as unpatriotic but I don't see the life of someone that lives down the road as inherently more valuable than the life of someone who lives in a war-torn country. I'd wager dual citizenship, growing up through the internet (many of my closest friends growing up lived in other countries and we became friends in chat rooms) and travel are big parts of that.
 
Nilly said:
Benazir Bhutto was the female PM of Pakistan in 1988. Iran and Iraq had female ministers in the 1950's. Iraq had an education system established in the 1920's and by the 70's it was public and freely available to women. It's only with the islamic revoluion and the gulf war that it regressed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_education_in_Iran



https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/07/afghanistan-in-the-1950s-and-60s/100544/
Iran before the revolution in photos - Business Insider

The middle east was becoming progressive before the Islamic revolution in the 1970's (which was partly down to us anyway). I largely agree with you on identity politics Eco but I think you're falling into the trap here of seeing the white western europeans and americans as the saviours of progressivism (using that term loosely with respect to identity politics) in the ME. We're not.

If you think that I am minimizing the effect of ISIS in the middle east then fair enough but I think you're minimizing the effect of coalition bombing. A foreign power bombing the **** out of civilians in their own countries. Thats something that's never, ever happened in the United States and the response to it would be terrifying. But it's business as usual out there. You read the reports of children being taught to run when they hear the sound of a drone flying overhead and you don't think that has far reaching consequences?
Click to expand...

So, you have nothing to say about the amazing progress in Iraq and Afghanistan. You choose instead to deflect to Iran, which the US is not bombing, and confuse Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
ecofarm said:
Note: I vote 'yes' in the poll from the standpoint that the deaths are necessary and serve the greater good. Less are killed than the targets of the strikes would have killed if they lived. I don't vote 'yes' in any sense of those deaths being fine.

Using the word 'acceptable' in the poll is not entirely honest.
Click to expand...

I meant acceptable in that those deaths serve the greater good. Your yes vote is essentially what I intended when I created the poll.

Nobody wants civilian deaths to happen, or think's they're just dandy, and rather than being a dishonest poll I would argue it would be dishonest for anyone to interpret the poll in such a way.
 
Nilly said:
This may be seen as unpatriotic but I don't see the life of someone that lives down the road as inherently more valuable than the life of someone who lives in a war-torn country.
Click to expand...

You're confusing patriotism and nationalism.
 
ecofarm said:
So, you have nothing to say about the amazing progress in Iraq and Afghanistan. You choose instead to deflect to Iran, which the US is not bombing, and confuse Iraq and Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

I speak about Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan in the post above. I've been speaking about the ME in general and Iraq, Syria and Libya in my posts in general. Not sure I see the problem.

These places were capable of great reform for the benefit of women etc perfectly fine without us bombing them.
 
Last edited:
Nilly said:
I speak about Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan in the post above. I've been speaking about the ME in general and Iraq, Syria and Libya in my posts in general. Not sure I see the problem.
Click to expand...

Our discussion is the progress in countries that the US is bombing. The US is not bombing Iran.

These places were capable of great reform for the benefit of women etc perfectly fine without us bombing them.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Afghanistan was a misogynist hellhole. Women are now educated and winning dozens of elections. Iraq was a genocidal dictatorship under heavy sanctions. It's now a democracy with human rights and a leading recipient of international aid and development.

Why do you refuse to recognize these world-changing advancements that result directly from US intervention?
 
ecofarm said:
Our discussion is the progress in countries that the US is bombing. The US is not bombing Iran.



Nonsense. Afghanistan was a misogynist hellhole. Women are now educated and winning dozens of elections. Iraq was a genocidal dictatorship under heavy sanctions. It's now a democracy with human rights and a leading recipient of international aid and development.

Why do you refuse to recognize these world-changing advancements that result directly from US intervention?
Click to expand...

Mohammed Zahir Shah (last King of Afghanistan) opened up education to women in Afghanistan in the 1930's.

You can see from my 'Photos of Afghanistan in the 1950's' link above that women were free to socialize with men, and didn't have to fully cover themselves. Much of the ME you are describing came with (as I have mentioned) the Islamic revolution and Taliban control in the late 1970's. Which has western fingerprints all over it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Afghanistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Zahir_Shah

During Zahir Shah's reign (1933-1973) education for women became a priority and young girls began being sent to schools. At these schools, girls were taught discipline, new technologies, ideas, and socialization in society.[10]

Kabul University was opened to girls in 1947 and by 1973 there was an estimated 150,000 girls in schools across Afghanistan. Unfortunately, marriage at a young age added to the high drop out rate but more and more girls were entering professions that were once viewed as only being for men.[10] Women were being given new opportunities to earn better lives for both themselves and their families. However, in the after the civil war and the takeover by the Taliban, women were stripped of these opportunities and sent back to lives where they were to stay at home and be controlled by their husbands and fathers.
Click to expand...
 
Nilly said:
This may be seen as unpatriotic but I don't see the life of someone that lives down the road as inherently more valuable than the life of someone who lives in a war-torn country. I'd wager dual citizenship, growing up through the internet (many of my closest friends growing up lived in other countries and we became friends in chat rooms) and travel are big parts of that.
Click to expand...

If I am the president, I am going to reach out and **** up anyone's day with air mail before I commit one single American soldier. Your spineless wamby pamby approach is what puts ground troops in positions of policing instead of winning.

Policing gets our troops killed without the benefit of winning.

IED's ring a bell?
 
RetiredUSN said:
Why don't you ask yourself what would happen if the bombing stopped?

It's ok with you if your neighbor down the road loses his son or daughter in some **** hole country like we have been doing for the past 60+ years?
What has been the benefit of the loss of life and limb since the Korean Conflict? I can go earlier, but that is ancient history. 58K dead in Vietnam, loss of life and limb in multiple minor skirmishes, (minor only if you survived), Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and I'm certain there are troops who have paid the full measure that we never hear about. WW2 was about the last "just war."
I'm not disparaging our military, they go where ordered. What do you tell parents? When does the dying become "in vain?"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
ecofarm said:
And what happened under the Taliban? You know, the situation when the US intervened.
Click to expand...

You mean the takeover of the taliban which had western fingerprints all over it? We were installing and propping up leaders in the ME all through the 50's and 60's to benefit our own economic goals. You don't think that had anything to do with it?
 
Nilly said:
You mean the takeover of the taliban which had western fingerprints all over it? We were installing and propping up leaders in the ME all through the 50's and 60's to benefit our own economic goals. You don't think that had anything to do with it?
Click to expand...

Deflection.

The people of Afghanistan were ruled by misogynist tyranny. Afghanistan is now a democracy and a recipient of international aid. Afghanistan has made tremendous advancements in human rights and women's rights. But you refuse to recognize that. Instead, you deflect to history irrelevant to our discussion and blaming the US for the Taliban.
 
The number of civilian deaths from bombing should be viewed in correlation to the number of U.S. soldier deaths. Boots on the ground would lessen the civilian death count but certainly raise the U.S. soldier death count.

Which do you care more about?

(Military action is going to take place regardless)
 
ecofarm said:
Deflection.

The people of Afghanistan were ruled by misogynist tyranny. Afghanistan is now a democracy and a recipient of international aid. Afghanistan has made tremendous advancements in human rights and women's rights. But you refuse to recognize that. Instead, you deflect to history irrelevant to our discussion and blaming the US for the Taliban.
Click to expand...

So our conversation has gone from coalition bombing in Syria, Iraq and Libya onto misogynistic regimes in Afghanistan and I'm the one deflecting :lol: Ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom